<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Monday, March 18, 2024
March 18, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Right Step on Raises

Vancouver council wise to nix pay hikes; salary panel must adhere to city charter

The Columbian
Published:

In many regards, the flap over a proposed raise for members of the Vancouver City Council has provided a lesson in the inner workings of government. And while the issue is not settled, council members were wise last week to reject a vast increase to their salaries.

The issue came to light in April, when the five-member Salary Review Commission chose to give the mayor a 117 percent raise beginning in January. By a 3-2 vote, the commission decided to increase the mayor’s salary from $2,300 a month to $5,000 per month. It also elected to increase pay for the mayor pro-tem from $2,000 per month to $3,125, and for other councilors from $1,800 to $2,708.

Mayor Tim Leavitt had lobbied in favor of a salary increase, arguing that his job goes well beyond the part-time duties that are spelled out in the city charter. The salary commission apparently agreed, but the decision brought much public attention to the previously little-known body that is appointed by the mayor.

A group of citizens, led by former Mayors Royce Pollard and Bruce Hagensen, took issue with the vast salary increase and launched a petition drive to put the raises on the ballot for citizens to weigh in. When enough signatures were gathered to allow for a vote, the council had the power to reject the raises — which is what it did last week. The issue will be returned to the salary commission, which is expected to decide upon pay rates for elected officials by the end of the year.

Throughout, the situation has provided a civics lesson for Vancouver residents. There is the fact that residents likely now have an increased understanding of how salaries are set for the city council; there is the fact that many citizens became involved in a petition drive, demonstrating and reinforcing the power of the people; and there is the fact that councilors — most of whom did not lobby for the salary increases in the first place — listened to the groundswell of public opposition and took corrective action.

And yet a couple conundrums remain. One is the notion of having a salary review commission that determines pay rates. As has been noted previously, the commission is selected by the mayor and has no oversight; commission members could raise the mayor’s salary to $1 million a year if they chose to do so, and the only recourse of the public would be to collect enough signatures to force a vote on the issue.

Another is that the salary commission bought into the line of thinking that council members do a great deal of work for the benefit of the city — such as public appearances and community engagement — and should be paid salaries commensurate with a full-time job. This proved to be the biggest problem with the salary commission, as members failed to recognize that such a decision is not their job. The duties of the city council are spelled out in the city charter, and Vancouver has a form of government in which a full-time city manager handles the day-to-day duties of overseeing city operations.

If the people of Vancouver believed the mayor or other councilors should be paid as full-time employees, then they would alter the charter to reflect such a desire. Until then, salary commission members must adhere to the city’s defined form of government. Now that they have an opportunity to revisit the raises, commission members should keep in mind the limitations the public has placed upon the duties of elected officials.

Loading...